The sons of God
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
I did not realize you had such a low Biblical literacy level and were not interested in checking out exactly what the Word does actually say, so I will leave you to yourself, as you are who you want to believe and quote, alone.Letsargue said:
Letsargue
New member
thelaqachisnext said:
---That’s a stupid and FOOLISH way to fight for what you BELIEVE. -- Where is the first Word of God in all that garbage you JUST SPIT OUT OF YOUR HOLE????
---The WORD says exactly what it says, it doesn’t NEED YOUR HELP TO SCREW IT UP. Why not just leave it as it is???? – That’s what God said to do. But you have to be wise as explain what GOD SAID. -- VERY VERY WISE OF YOU. You stupid fool. (GODS TERM).
*
---------------Paul---
*
The Berean
Well-known member
First, I'd like to thank Turbo for inviting to respond in this thread.
These two articles pretty much sum up my belief on what the phrase "sons of God" refers to in Genesis 6:4
http://www.equip.org/free/DG064.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/JAG062.htm
To those who believe that "sons of God" refer to fallen angels (demons), I have some questions:
1) Do angels have DNA?
2) If Angels can take on biological human form, doesn't that imply that they can be killed like humans (stabbed, shot, posioned, electrocuted, hit by a drunk driver, forced to watch American Idol, etc)
3) If fallen angels can impregnate human women can the human-demon hybrid offspring receive eternal salvation by accepting Jesus Christ?
These two articles pretty much sum up my belief on what the phrase "sons of God" refers to in Genesis 6:4
http://www.equip.org/free/DG064.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/JAG062.htm
To those who believe that "sons of God" refer to fallen angels (demons), I have some questions:
1) Do angels have DNA?
2) If Angels can take on biological human form, doesn't that imply that they can be killed like humans (stabbed, shot, posioned, electrocuted, hit by a drunk driver, forced to watch American Idol, etc)
3) If fallen angels can impregnate human women can the human-demon hybrid offspring receive eternal salvation by accepting Jesus Christ?
Letsargue
New member
---Those questions are chosen for their lack of the possibility of having a clear answer, as do most Foolish churches do. I’ll ask you a like question;The Berean said:
--Did, or can a cow, jump over the moon??? God does not cover that in His Word, Maybe in His Precepts. However in your world, the cow did, but not in my world.
---However, -- If the Angel is in the flesh, the Angel would indeed have DNA, as did the Apostle Paul. He was also killed, and I would say, Paul as the Arch Angel who was, sees you now being very foolish.
*
-------------Paul---
*
logos_x
New member
The Berean
Well-known member
Letsargue said:
It's common with people with no answers to respond with silly insults. I will disregard them as having no bearing on this discussion.
Those question are honest hard hitting questions for the "fallen angel" group. How can angels have human DNA if they are not human. Fallen angels, like all angels, were created by God. They are bodiless, non-sexual beings. They do not procreate even with each other. Paul was not the Arch Angel, if he was please give us Scriptural evidence for this. If God does not cover the issue of angel DNA then why do you assume that they do without have any Biblical basis for such a belief? :think:
The Berean
Well-known member
So? Jesus Christ is the LORD and SAVIOR, the Creator of all and the One that gives us eternal life. As you saying that fallen angels have the same creative power as Jesus Christ? That's ridiculous.Letsargue said:
In Christ,
the Berean
The Berean
Well-known member
If angels have human DNA that would make them human, right? But angels do not procreate even with themselves so how can the procreate with human women?logos_x said:
Wait, you just said that angles have human DNA. If this is true then they would have the same human biological frailities, with similar resistence to heat, cold, diease, aging, etc., unless they are the Incredible Hulk, types or something.
Are you sure? Ther is no redemptive plan for fallen angels as there is for people. The fallen angles do not have the option to repent and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. So with the demon-human hybrid what part gets saved?
logos_x
New member
The Berean said:
As I said, this is one of the most contoversial situations in the Bible. Today, we understand what DNA is. When these things were written they didn't.
The belief was common to virtually all cultures..not just the writers of the Bible. It was also the basis for much of Mythology.
The river Jordan's name was Yar-dane in the Hebrew...which means "the place of the decent". The common belief was that someone came down from the sky...and caused much mischief..including messing with the Human genome.
The B'nai Elohim saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fit extensions. And they took wives for themselves from all those that they chose...The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when the B'nai Elohim CAME IN TO the daughters of Adam, and they bore to them -- they were Powerful Ones which existed from ancient times, the men of name. (from the Interlinear Hebrew Bible Genesis 6)
In the Old Testament, the designation "sons of God" (bene Elohim) is never used of humans, but always of supernatural beings that are higher than man but lower than God. To fit such a category only one species is known--angels. And the term "sons of God" applies to both good and bad angels.
The designation "sons of God" is used four other times in the Old Testament, each time referring to angels. One example is Daniel 3:25, where king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men, "and the form of the fourth is like the son of God." The translation is different and clearer in our modern versions, "like a son of the gods." Since Jesus had not yet become the "only begotten son" of God, this "son" would have had to be angelic.
Another example is Job 38:7 which says the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth. Angels are the only entities that fit this designation since man had not been created at that time!
In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the "sons of God" came to present themselves before the Lord in Heaven. Among the sons of God is Satan--a further implication that the "sons of God" must have been angels.
Since the designation "sons of God" is consistently used in the Old Testament for angels, it is logical to conclude that the term in Genesis 6:2 also refers to angels.
Interpreting the "sons of God" as fallen angels, the question immediately arises--do angels marry? In Matthew 22:30, Jesus said angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. This seems a clear and emphatic negative. However, it does not preclude the possibility of such a thing happening--obviously contrary to the will of God. And it does not preclude fallen angels, who had rebelled against God already, from cohabiting with women of Earth, as the Scriptures state.
Some interpret the words of Jesus as meaning that angels do not marry among themselves. Is it because they are all male? Or is it because celestial beings are deathless and thus need no offspring. Only terrestrial beings need to find immortality in their children. But if they do not need to marry and procreate, is it still possible that they could engage in sexual acts? If not among themselves then with human spouses? Jude seems quite explicit on the matter: the angels left their own habitation, and gave themselves over to fornication, going after strange flesh. In other words, they were capable of performing human functions--eating, drinking, walking, talking, even sexual activity and fathering children.
The fact that angels do not marry does not in itself prove they are sexless.
The off-spring of this union between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" were so extraordinary that it indicates an unusual parentage. In no way could the progenitors of such beings be ordinary humans. Their mothers possibly could be human, or their fathers, but certainly not both. Either the father or the mother had to be superhuman. Only in such a way can one account for the extraordinary character and prowess of the off-spring.
God's law of reproduction, according to the biblical account of creation, is "everything after his kind." God's law makes it impossible for giants to be produced by normal parentage. To produce such monstrosities as the Nephilim presupposes super- natural parentage.
When the Greek Septuagint was made, "Nephilim" was translated as "gegenes." This word suggests "giants" but actually it has little reference to size or strength. "Gegenes" means "earth born." The same term was used to describe the mythical "Titans" -- being partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin.
The Hebrew and the Greek words do not exclude the presence of great physical strength. Indeed, a combined supernatural and natural parentage would imply such a characteristic. Angels, according to Scripture, are known for their power. They are often referred to as "sons of the Mighty" (Psalm 103:20). Therefore, if the ones who sired them were strong and mighty, it could be assumed that their offspring were likewise.
No evidence exists in Scripture that the offspring of mixed marriages (believers and unbelievers) were giants, excelling in great strength and might. No evidence can be found anywhere in history for that matter. Such an interpretation poses impossible assumptions.
Is there no redemptive plan for "fallen" angels? This is an assumption.
While it might be true that there is no explicit redemptive plan for fallen angels in scripture...there are still hidden things in God.
There was no redemptive plan for Gentiles either...unill it was explicitly revealed to the Apostle Paul.
But..at any rate..the real issue for me is this at this point:
In 1947 an Arab boy tending his sheep accidentally discovered an ancient cave near the Dead Sea. In it were found a priceless collection of ancient scrolls which soon became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Qumran Texts. Among these writings was one known as the Genesis Apocryphon. At first it was thought to be the long lost Book of Lamech. Although the scroll consisted of a speech by Lamech and a story about some of the patriarchs from Enoch to Abraham; it was not that book.
According to the Bible, Lamech was the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah. He was the ninth of the ten patriarchs of the antedeluvian world.
It is significant, however, that the Genesis Apocryphon mentions the Nephilim, and makes reference to the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" introduced in Genesis 6. The Apocryphon also elaborates considerably on the succinct statements found in the Bible, and provides valuable insights into the way these ancient stories were interpreted by the ancient Jews.
The copy of the Genesis Apocryphon discovered at Qumran dates back to the 2nd century B.C., but it was obviously based on much older sources. When discovered in 1947, it had been much mutilated from the ravages of time and humidity. The sheets had become so badly stuck together that years passed before the text was deciphered and made known. When scholars finally made public its content, the document confirmed that celestial beings from the skies had landed on planet Earth. More than that, it told how these beings had mated with Earth-women and had begat giants.
Is this story myth or history, fable or fact? Specialized research has revealed that many ancient legends have a basis in fact.
Then..we have Genesis 6 in our Bibles. If it was Mythological, How much of the rest of the Bible is Mythological? And why was it the subject of so much Apocryphal writing.
The book of the Jubilees remarks that Jared or Yeh-red, an Old Testament patriarch, was so called because in his days the angels descended upon the earth - Yaw-rad "descend". It is interesting to note that "Jordan" comes from that same root word denoting "descent, coming down or falling" - Yar-dane "the place of the descent". Jordan, "place of the descent", is located in the ancient boundary of Israel. Israel is currently a major location for "sightings" according to UFO researchers.
The Book of Enoch explains that the Sons of God descended first onto the mountain called Hermon which in Hebrew means desolation, in the land of Jordan the place of the descent. The rebel angels intended to thwart God's plan for the earth by destroying the descendents of Adam.
In Genesis 6:1-4 the "sons of God" are captivated by the beauty of the "daughters of men." They subsequently marry them and produce an offspring of giants known as the Nephilim. Genesis goes on to say that these Nephilim were "mighty men" and "men of renown."
"Sons of God"? "Daughters of men"? What sort of beings were these? Were they human or did they belong to an alien species from outer space?
The reason is that this is where this whole story is leading many today. From demonology to UFO enthusiasts, From Bible scholars to Zechariah Sitchen...the story is becoming more and more an issue today.
As weird as all this is...the data is something to wrestle with.
Last edited:
I didn't remember posting to this thread and had not seen your reply to me.elohiym said:
Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, a title from Enoch, about Him, the 'elect One'.
Jude, the brother of the LORD -from the same womb, anyway- directly quotes Enoch; Peter almost word for word says the same thing Jude says.
First: I do not say we should use the book of Enoch as inspired canon, as we do not know what may have been messed with; but those things that are quoted in the New Testament and in the old do verify the passages from Enoch that they quote -or the themes of the passages of the themes they quote, at least.
When I read it I found some passage in the Old and New Testament made clear that were not clear, to me, before; that is, there are references in the accepted canon to things that are not found in the accepted canon but were found mentioned in Enoch; and to me that cleared up where they had come from that the Biblical authors had referenced.
I can prove nothing; I believe there is much in Enoch that is true. I do not accept all things just because I accept the veracity of some; however, in the translations, some of the things I find that I cannot accept in Enoch may have gotten translated wrongly because of a lack of understanding -just as the KJV has wrong statements because of the translators mis-understandings, in some places; although the original as given through the prophets is inspired: translations are not inspired either in the Bible or in Enoch, as far as I'm concerned, and if we had the original of Enoch we coud clear up some things, I suppose -if we were interested, anyway.
One thing in Enoch that I do not accept as written is the cuttings of plants that took root that the fallen angels taught the women, as supposedly being sin; I do not believe the original is written the way it is translated, and I suspect -and cannot prove- that the original had to do with cloning and gene splicing to produce offspring from the fallen angels, but that the translators had no idea what the original meant. That is my own opinion and I do not make a religion of it.
but the parts of the Book of Enoch that was found in the dead sea scrolls were pre-New Testament by three hundred years (if I remember correctly -and I may have mis-remembered), and those writers of the New Testament who quoted from it gave credence to those parts they quoted, at least.
Jesus was familiar with it and quoted from it by referring to Himself as the Son of Man many times: also, when the demons reference Enoch when Jesus was going to cast them out of Legion, Jesus knew their point of reference and understood what they were asking -He did not say, "Huh?'; his 'brethren', James and Jude, were familiar with it; Peter, John, and Paul were familiar with it; and it was a part of the canon of the early Church and was also quoted by some of the early Believers -some of whom accepted it as canon and whose writings we have access to- until the Roman Catholic Church banned it.
The Ethiopian Church has never banned it and has kept it as canon since the beginning of the Ethiopian Church, which is where the first modern copies were gotten from, in the 1800's, and translated to English from.
I read a lot, and all these things I have read, and the Bible I am very familiar with, also; but no, I can prove nothing.
Below is a quote from a site I found by google search: I know nothing of the site -if they are Christian or false cult, but the quote is informational, about the use of Enoch by the LORD Jesus, which was in circulation and used by the Jews of His 'day'.;
http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm
"Despite its unknown origins, Christians once accepted the words of this Book of Enoch as authentic scripture, especially the part about the fallen angels and their prophesied judgment. In fact, many of the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book of Enoch. Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked" - the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.
There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch. Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians' acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible's mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the
transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke's verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him." The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One" - the one promised in the Book of Enoch."
Last edited: